Instigator / Pro

Mall

1389

rating

408

debates

44.24%

won

Topic

#5826

All of law abiding America, everyone will support Donald Trump.

Status

Voting

The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

Voting will end in:

Tags

Trump 2024

Parameters

Publication date: 11.25.2024 02:59AM
Last updated date: 02.24.2025 05:09PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 4
Time for argument: One week
Max argument characters: 30,000
Voting period: Six months
Point system: Winner selection
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

Sunshineboy217

1500

rating

debates

50.0%

won

Description

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

Send a message for questions on the topic.

Please do not accept if you foresee yourself not having time to participate.

Round 1

Mall

12.01.2024 01:31PM

Pro

All of law abiding America, everyone will support Donald Trump.

You have to face it this way.

No matter where your stance was.

No matter if you're non partisan..

No matter how you were vehemently opposed to President Trump's policies.

No matter how hard you work to petition or work against President Trump.

You do so legally to petition or protest if you do.

Under what legal administration?

Well the Trump administration of course.

It doesn't matter who is in office. You're under that person's administration.

Whether it was Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, the great Mr. Roosevelt who was underrated of course, no matter.

Under Lincoln, Adams, Jefferson and Washington. If you are a citizen or were a citizen of any of these individual's government, you were indeed in support of them or the government in which it stands which it can have no support without people to be governed by it.

Now those that could not be governed by it, that's a different avenue.

Those are the ones that don't or won't cooperate with the law.

Unless you're anarchist, rebel or criminal, you will be supporting the current presidential administration.

See the way a government works, it's functional with people by people for people. Who is the government?

People. What is a government?

A governing body of people. A governed people controlling people.

So how are you going to be against the government administration?

You'd have to be out of control.

A government exists by its governed supporters. No government, no government supporters. No supporters , no government, no congress, no oval office, no president.

Works the same with any system requiring supporters as constituents to support it.

In a prison system, whether monetary or penal, mental and physical.

You can be vehemently opposed in thought. Until you've proceeded further than that, you support the system.

Even slaves, this speaks to the physical imprisonment. All slaves support the slavery system, in support of the system and maintain the system.

In war, includes P.O.W. supports the dictation of the enemies. In the camps, there could be none without those captured.

I read about this comparison to Hitler. Well a support to president Trump as the support to Hitler upholding the system in place .

All law abiding citizens , liberal, conservative, non partisan of the US support the Trump administration.

If you are religious or secular (worldly religious), atheist or theist, granted you are law abiding, you are supporting the government system opposed to your beliefs. You are supporting, upholding a belief system possibly opposed to your own. This is why there is no truly separation of church/religion and state.

Whom you vote for is representative of your belief system with hopes of them legislating that belief system.

So even with the party that administers what is opposed to what you wanted or want, you end up being a part of the support system anyway that upholds what the country is ran by.

Sunshineboy217

12.02.2024 08:42PM

Con

Let me start off by saying that I personally have no problem with Donald Trump. I don't think he did well in his first term, and I expect the same of his second term.

But "everyone will support Donald Trump" just doesn't make sense. Nothing is ever 100% supported by everyone. This is true for presidents. I could just end this debate right now with that, but I'd rather also take a look at everything you said, so let's go line by line.

No matter where your stance was.

No matter if you're non partisan..

No matter how you were vehemently opposed to President Trump's policies.

No matter how hard you work to petition or work against President Trump.

You do so legally to petition or protest if you do.

Under what legal administration?

Well the Trump administration of course.

Yes, it is true that petitioning against Trump would happen under Trump's legal administration (that is, provided that it happens when he's actually in office). But just because you are using a system to do something doesn't mean that you are a supporter of that system. When Trump was impeached, could I say that the impeachers were actually in support of him, because they did it under his legal administration? No, because a supporter of Trump wouldn't try to impeach him.

Under Lincoln, Adams, Jefferson and Washington. If you are a citizen or were a citizen of any of these individual's government, you were indeed in support of them or the government in which it stands which it can have no support without people to be governed by it.
...
See the way a government works, it's functional with people by people for people. Who is the government?
People. What is a government?

A governing body of people. A governed people controlling people.

So how are you going to be against the government administration?

You seem to be treating the term "democracy" a little differently than it actually is. You seem to think that if the majority of a population votes for a candidate (in this case, Trump), the entire population is therefore now in favor of that candidate. That doesn't make any sense. Unanimity is not what democracy is. Trump won 50% of the popular vote! Does that mean that the other 50% also voted for him? No, they didn't. If I run through the street screaming "Down With Trump," I'm doing so under his legal administration. But that doesn't mean that I'm supporting him.

I could go over so much more, but I feel that my point is fairly clear and obvious. A democracy is of the people, by the people, and for the people, but that doesn't mean that all the people can get along. A President's administration is upheld by the majority vote, not by a unanimous vote.

Round 2

Mall

12.05.2024 11:02AM

Pro

"But just because you are using a system to do something doesn't mean that you are a supporter of that system. When Trump was impeached, could I say that the impeachers were actually in support of him, because they did it under his legal administration? No, because a supporter of Trump wouldn't try to impeach him."

When you use a system for what it is, can it be used without support?

Something has to support it or it would collapse, right. You support a tool in order for the tool itself to be supported for it to be used. The tool can't support itself.

So likewise, while you're doing what you're doing with the very tools that somebody is requiring you to use, they are used with your support even if the part of the tools can be reversed on that sumbody.

Do you follow?

"You seem to be treating the term "democracy" a little differently than it actually is. You seem to think that if the majority of a population votes for a candidate (in this case, Trump), the entire population is therefore now in favor of that candidate. That doesn't make any sense. "

It's not about being in favor. I said support. You're not grasping my position. You support a system you belong to which would be the system of the Trump administration.

"Trump won 50% of the popular vote! Does that mean that the other 50% also voted for him? No, they didn't. If I run through the street screaming "Down With Trump," I'm doing so under his legal administration. But that doesn't mean that I'm supporting him."

Grasp this. Nevermind your vote. Nevermind your favor. I made this clear in the first round.

"No matter where your stance was.

No matter if you're non partisan..

No matter how you were vehemently opposed to President Trump's policies.

No matter how hard you work to petition or work against President Trump."

You ultimately support President Trump. Has nothing to do with your vote, feelings, what you're personally opposed to. I made all those points about slavery and the camps. You should of made more points. You need them to make a stronger case.

If you're disturbing the peace, most likely you're not abiding under Trump's administration. Which is why the law would come into play so the example you gave actually is consistent with my case as that isn't law abiding in your example.

"I could go over so much more, but I feel that my point is fairly clear and obvious."

Next round, come back with more argumentation. Otherwise, your points fall flat, you don't give me much to counter.

"A democracy is of the people, by the people, and for the people, but that doesn't mean that all the people can get along. A President's administration is upheld by the majority vote, not by a unanimous vote."

Here is what you are to get. The president's administration is upheld by ALL law abiding citizens, not just the citizens that voted for the said electoral candidate. Do you follow better now?

I'm glad you made this point.

The administration is upheld or supported by ALL law abiding citizens which validates their law abiding citizenship in the first place. This is regardless of voting.

Distinguish voting and supporting. One is what you wish, the other is what you will if you do conduct yourself as lawful.

Sunshineboy217

12.06.2024 01:59AM

Con

It seems that there was a misunderstanding between the two of us. When I accepted this debate, I assumed that “support Trump” meant “favor Trump,” which is what most people typically mean when they talk about a politician.

I agree with you on supporting, as in upholding a system. So I guess this is awkward. We can both agree, but we have a couple rounds left.

Round 3

Mall

12.11.2024 04:14PM

Pro

I expressed clearly in the first round of what I was talking about. Also to uphold the system is still saying upholding who is the administrator of it. To support the system is supporting the administrator of it.

So that goes to say , you are indeed upholding the Trump administration , you are a supporter of President Trump. Now if you don't agree with any of this, you still have an opportunity to argue.

You're not supporting a system without whom that is running it. You as a prisoner of a prison system support the prison system for without the support of prisoners, makes the system non existent with nothing to carry its need for being. The warden, the state , the entire justice department of folks that have their jobs via all penal prisoners.

Likewise , you as a non voter of President Trump will serve as reason for him to have a job in office. You a law compliant citizen of the states do indeed support President Trump.

If you agree with that, then you have no problem saying exactly "all law abiding citizens of America are supporters of President Trump.

Sunshineboy217

12.18.2024 04:14PM

Con

Forfeited

Round 4

Mall

12.19.2024 11:49PM

Pro

Case closed. Opposing side conceded, forfeited and agreed with my position.

Sunshineboy217

12.24.2024 03:26AM

Con

I am terribly sorry that I was unable to respond in the last argument. I have been unable to be very active on this site for a little while. That said, I do not, as you said, concede the argument.

While it can be said that abiding by the law upholds the current legal administration, there are also many ways to abide by the law without supporting the current legal administration. Namely, legally trying to get rid of that administration. This includes, but is not limited to: investigative journalism to uncover the faults of the current legal administration, legal protests against the current administration, attempts to prevent the current legal administration from passing certain legislation and attempts to impeach the current administration.

I can not find any application of reason that could be used to prove that the actions I have described uphold the current legal administration. I suppose you could say that even if it’s an attempt to undermine or even remove the administration, it is still abiding by the administration’s law and therefore upholding that administration. But if I go buy donuts from a donut shop and then try to call in the health inspector to shut down the shop, I am not supporting the shop just because I bought donuts from the shop. Any attempt to actively destroy the current legal administration is, by no means, an attempt to uphold that current legal administration.

I rest my case, and may the voters decide.

fauxlaw

02.24.2025 05:09PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

Pro set-up a self-conflicted Resolution: "All of law abiding America, everyone will support Donald Trump. " Is it "all of law-abiding America," or its it "everyone;" i.e., to include non-law-abiding people; o also include non-voters, and even illegal aliens who should not have the privilege of voting. Several separate groups of people. It is difficult to argue for or against a conflicted Resolution.
That said, Con's R1 argued the definition of "support," which Pro did not define as part of the debate challenge, and it turned out Pro and Con disagreed on a definition, then Con's R2 agreed to accept Pro's definition belatedly given.
Con forfeited one round [R3], and Pro erroneously assumed that meant Con forfeited the entire debate. No, Con returned for R4 and argued 1] that he did not forfeit the debate [he didn't, just one round, or 30%; under the threshold of full forfeiture]. Con argued successfully that one can legally oppose an administration, and therefore not support it.